Some Thoughts on IETF Community LeadershipDepartment of Computer ScienceUniversity of AucklandPB 92019Auckland1142New Zealandbrian.e.carpenter@gmail.comThis is a personal view of what the IETF community might expect of its
members who serve in leadership positions such as Area Directors and IAB members.
It is intended as personal input to the Nominating Committee, but posted
as a draft since there is nothing private about it.
The IETF has a relatively open but not exactly democratic way of choosing those
who serve the community as Area Directors, members of the Internet Architecture
Board, and as IETF Chair. Job descriptions are open and candidate lists are open.
Feedback on individuals is intentionally confidential to the NomCom, which in my
opinion is correct. We shouldn't be in the business of naming and shaming
those who are willing to serve us. As a community, we must not hesitate to make
a fuss about decisions we don't like, or to insist when we see a technical
error going uncorrected. We do have a formal appeals mechanism, we do have the
opportunity to send frank feedback to the NomCom every year, and we do in theory
have the ultimate weapon of a recall procedure.However, there's a gap in the above mechanisms. The job descriptions mentioned
above are written by the body where there is a vacancy: by the IESG for Area Directors
and the IETF Chair, and by the IAB for its own membership. That's logical as far
as it goes, but it doesn't give the community as a whole the chance to say
what we think we expect of those who serve in leadership positions, beyond
their obligations to the IETF process rules and their technical expertise.
Also, even with the best of intentions, those bodies write job descriptions to
replicate themselves and what they see as a smooth-running operation. There
is little scope in the job descriptions for describing desirable changes
in the status quo.To some extent this gap is filled by the formal documents that describe the
IETF process, in the IESG and IAB charters, and in the Tao of the IETF. But
there is little explicit description of how the leadership is expected to behave.
This draft is a personal version of a more explicit approach.
It's by no means definitive and has no authority. Discussion (on ietf@ietf.org?)
is welcome.
A personal note: I have served in the past on the IAB (including
a spell as Chair), and on the IESG as IETF Chair. I'm quite sure that
I didn't live up to the expectations that follow. The people who
serve on the IESG and IAB are fallible humans. But it seems reasonable
to tell them, and the NomCom, what we'd like.The NomCom also has responsibilities to select members of the future
IETF Administration LLC Board and of the IETF Trust. Most of the considerations
below apply also to those positions, even though the emphasis here is
on the IESG and IAB.
My request to the NomCom is to consider the issues below when evaluating all candidates.First, we expect leadership. Although the IETF is basically an organisation of equals,
we need Area Directors, the IESG as a whole, the IETF Chair, and the IAB to set directions
and gently ensure that we make progress in those directions. (Yes, the IETF has to
move in multiple directions at once.) So whatever else happens, we need the ADs, the
IAB members, and the IETF Chair to behave as leaders. In this draft, I'll refer
to them as "leaders" from now on. However, as leaders, they are servants of the
community, not autocrats.But at the same time, the IETF is based on rough consensus. So we expect the
leaders to listen carefully to the community, and not just to the loudest
or most articulate voices in the community. We expect them to be assiduous in
seeking consensus, and in understanding the reasons for dissent. In fact, we
expect them to enquire carefully into the reasons for dissent, and to treat
dissenters respectfully. Specifically, consensus in the IESG (or IAB) is not
the same thing as consensus in the IETF. We do expect the leaders
to take decisions, but only when it's time to do so: after the facts are
in and the community consensus is clear. Decisiveness is good. Arbitrary or rushed
decisions are bad.Precisely because dissent is healthy and consensus is usually rough
rather than complete, we expect discussions among the leaders to be
as public, transparent and documented as much as is reasonably possible.We expect the leaders to question the way the IETF does business
and to change it if appropriate, subject of course to community debate and consensus.We naturally expect the leaders to leave their company and personal loyalties at the door. More
difficult, we expect them to set aside their own technical biases and preferences.
This is tricky, because we need their technical expertise. But arbitrary decisions are bad.We expect the leaders to remember that a much wider technical
community looks to the IETF (and to the IRTF, the IANA service, and the
RFC series) to serve and protect the technical future of the Internet. So
listening to the community is more than just listening to the IETF.
The IAB and the IESG both have important responsibilities in appointing
community members to various positions, such as WG chairs, specific
oversight committees, and the like. We expect them to make these
appointments based on the good of the community as a whole, not
on their own preferences or biases.We need our technical leaders to be patient with those who don't understand. This
isn't so much about technical issues, which we all presumably know how to deal with, but
about the reasons why some part of IETF process is the way it is, or why a BOF
proposal was refused, or why a WG wasn't chartered, or why a topic belongs
in the IRTF, or why some work has been redirected to the Independent Stream,
or whatever. It's all very obvious to people who've been in the IETF for years.
Not so obvious to the rest of the world.We expect the leaders not to work too hard. The IESG in particular works
just as hard as it makes itself work. More precisely, today's IESG defines
the work load for its successors, by approving WG charters. If fewer WGs
are approved or renewed today, there will be fewer drafts to process in
two years' time. We expect the IESG to say "no" quite often. In the case
of BOFs and workshops, we also expect the IAB to recommend "no" quite often.
Of course, the "no" should be clearly explained, and rooted in community
consensus and technical evaluationsOf course, the leaders will follow IETF process rules and IETF etiquette.
But we also expect them to use common sense when the rules turn out to be
stupid, or simply inapplicable to a particular situation.
Either suggest a change in the rules, or make an exception, while telling the
community what's going on and asking for feedback.
(One of the historical strengths of the IETF relative to competing bodies
is our ability to put good sense over over-specific rules.)Finally, there is a well-known and very human side effect of serving
in a leadership position: hubris. The modern definition is "excessive pride or
self-confidence" but the ancient Greeks had a more dramatic version:
"excessive pride towards or defiance of the gods, leading to nemesis."
Whichever version you choose, it's bad. We expect the leaders to remember
that they are fallible and that, after a few years, they will be ordinary
members of the IETF community again.Security considerations are not discussed in this memo.This document makes no request of the IANA.I decided to write this based, not only on my own observations,
but also on comments and suggestions from several members of the
community over the years. Of course I am solely responsible for the current text.
draft-carpenter-community-leaders-00, 2018-09-08:
Initial version